The Librarian
Banned
That doesn't make it all good. It's actually kind of insulting when you're talking about disenfranchising millions of Americans and you're not even American.
LOL
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
LOL
Rocket Scientist
Member
I was actually refering to disenfranchising millions of non-Americans too. America is not the only democracy showing why democracy doesn't work. It's also funny he even used the term un-American when he could have said un-democratic. Democracy is not limited to America. Though I'm sure there are millions of Americans who do believe America = Democracy and Democracy = American.
The Librarian
Banned
Oh, well, that makes it all the better!
TheHeretic
Banned
That the payroll tax is directly tied to social security is the sole reason its survived up until this point and will to the end of our lifetimes. People feel they've directly paid into it, which makes it untouchable in many ways.
Rocket Scientist
Member
A little bit, yes! At least I'm not just discriminating against dumb people in America. I'm discriminating against all dumb people. I would say that is a significant difference in my favor.
While true, I think you've just opened Pandora's box, which means we're getting another EV lecture. I wonder if public opinion could ever move to a more accepting view of the theories/realities he discusses in his posts. Life would perhaps be easier.
The Librarian
Banned
I was being sarcastic, and no, that's not a significant difference in your favor. Never knew you were this authoritarian.
Police say suicide bomber detonated bomb at us embassy in Turkish capital; 2 killed
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=47154926
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=47154926
TheHeretic
Banned
Guns are a part of US culture wholly unique to the united states. Self hatred and self pity aren't going to get gun control advocated anywhere - laws follow the culture, not the other way around, and culture is difficult to change. In the 70's drink driving was barely considered a crime at all, now its considered extremely serious. Same of smoking, sex with minors and many other things.
There are almost as many guns in the US as people already, try to ban things all you like, without confiscation you won't have anything resembling control and never will.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Haha, I'm very well aware that you were sarcastic. I disagree that my view is authoritarian though, but I understand why it comes across that way since I haven't detailed it precisely. Many of the qualities of modern democracies like free press, civil liberties are not part of the classic authoritarian government, but in my opinion they aren't mutually exclusive, if that is the correct way to phrase it. The lack of these things is what has made the classic authoritarian regimes fail, not the lack of voting (which is called democratic representation, yet this very page has an example of voting not leading to democratic representation). I actually believe that an authoritarian style regime could lead to a greater democratic representation of the will and best interests of the people than modern democracies.
The Librarian
Banned
Actually, the more you detail it, the worse your position gets, and the more it seems I was right on the money. That's some dangerous line of thinking.
Rocket Scientist
Member
That's too bad that you think a classic authoritarian regime is better than one with civil liberties, rule of law, free press etc. etc.
Keep it classy dHP!
Rocket Scientist
Member
If any of those freedoms existed in reality in the Soviet Union I would be pretty surprised.
Edit: The Dutch government just nationalized what I think is the 4th largest bank in the country. Still feeling the effects of 2008 and betting on real estate/mortgages.
The Librarian
Banned
LOL. That's not what I was referring to when I said "dangerous line of thinking." You know, for a guy that wants to ban "dumb people" from voting, you're saying some pretty stupid things, like, for starters, saying you want to ban "dumb people" from voting, and:
Rocket Scientist
Member
To the first quote: This very page has an example whereby an authoritarian figure looking at objective facts would make a decision about social security that would benefit the country and people in America. Democratically elected individiuals are not making that decision. Also, this thread is full of posts about what would objectively and scientifically be the best solution to a wide array of topics. If you don't believe my statement in your quote to be true, then you're saying that all of these posts would not lead to a better country/world.
The second quote: The social security survey shows the failure of democratic representation and authoritarian regimes have failed because they denied people civil liberties. Doesn't sound too dumb to me.
TheHeretic
Banned
Well duh, because those ideas are incompatible with authoritarianism. Go read about the October Revolution and learn about the disparity of the ideas that society had planned for itself versus the eventual reality. All authoritarian regimes end the same way, and civil liberties are always wiped out regardless of what laws are theoretically in place.
The Librarian
Banned
#BangingHeadAgainstWall
Rocket Scientist is saying some pretty stupid things. Can we stop him from voting?
Rocket Scientist
Member
They are not incompatible. They are only incompatible when individuals have a reason to make them incompatible i.e. acquiring material wealth for themselves. When the rulers have no material or other possessions and dedicate their lives to finding objective truths, civil liberties are compatible with it.
I voted for a party which is now leading my country and enacting austerity. They are killing the educational system by changing our socialist student financing system into America's loan your way to a degree system. Take my vote away I beg of you.
More people should be encouraged to vote, not less.
In Australia, we have compulsorily voting. This means that our major political parties have to appeal to all citizens, not just their base - the result is policies that are extremely moderate. If voting for a party offends you, you can always cast a "donkey vote" (i.e. an invalid vote) such that you can maintain your conscience. As a citizen you are expected to participate in the electoral process - this is how it should be.
We have moderate politics where there are bipartisan solutions for everything. It was our "conservative" party that instituted the gun buy-back scheme. We were one of the first countries to introduce a carbon tax. Implementing a stimulus after the GFC was not considered some act of tyranny.
In Australia, we have compulsorily voting. This means that our major political parties have to appeal to all citizens, not just their base - the result is policies that are extremely moderate. If voting for a party offends you, you can always cast a "donkey vote" (i.e. an invalid vote) such that you can maintain your conscience. As a citizen you are expected to participate in the electoral process - this is how it should be.
We have moderate politics where there are bipartisan solutions for everything. It was our "conservative" party that instituted the gun buy-back scheme. We were one of the first countries to introduce a carbon tax. Implementing a stimulus after the GFC was not considered some act of tyranny.
The Librarian
Banned
Well, you know, an authoritarian figure would've looked at all of that and saw all of those as good policies and would have implemented them anyway.
TheHeretic
Banned
Most of this is just a product of the electorate really. People are well educated, generally wealthy and there's no economic or social crisis driving people to extreme ideologies.
Yes, there is truth to that. But it is not the complete picture.
Let me quote you something I heard on NPR a few months back. It was from an interview with a conservative from the American Enterprise Institute who was talking about the possibility of more gridlock in a 2nd Obama term. When asked about what change he would like to see in the American political system, he had this to say:
The Librarian
Banned
Ineresting Gallup poll, though I disagree that asking people what their ideology defines the state's ideology in comparison to other states. Vermont's the most liberal state in the Union. Their "hicks" (as described to me by another Vermonter) are different from other state's hicks. Instead of hating gay marriage and what have you, they're like, "Two marrying whomever they want? Whatever, doesn't bother me." And my favorite: "You want to tax us to give us free healthcare? Well, okay!"
The Librarian
Banned
Oh, I see how it is, PoliGAF. So because it's not the election anymore, you don't care about job numbers? Well then...
January: +157K
December revised upward to: +196K (previously 155K)
November revised upward to: +247K (previously 161K)
January: +157K
December revised upward to: +196K (previously 155K)
November revised upward to: +247K (previously 161K)
Nobody posted them ,I was looking.
Black Republican
Member
some big revisions even with 7.9% unemployment now
Rocket Scientist
Member
It would have been even more interesting if they combined self reporting of ideology with a person's views on various political isseus. Though I'm sure someone has done this too.
adamsappel
Member
I agree with Rocket Scientist that a "Benevolent Dictator" could result in better policies, but that's a fairy tale solution.
I hope the librul media hypes those revised job numbers!
I hope the librul media hypes those revised job numbers!
Obama's still cooking those books, I see.
I've been meaning to finalize my few articles I've got drafted for the blog, but I've had to drive a few hundred miles for work this week and it's left me in a vegetative state. This weekend will be a productive one (especially with the snow), I swear!
I've been meaning to finalize my few articles I've got drafted for the blog, but I've had to drive a few hundred miles for work this week and it's left me in a vegetative state. This weekend will be a productive one (especially with the snow), I swear!
I think we would have to have compulsorily primary voting as well for it to work here. A lot of these congressmen are more worried about primary voters (i.e. crazy people) than the voters that they will deal with in the general election
Its one reason why i want primary reform, sort of like they are doing in California. I think we will get more candidates that will appeal to the middle that way
You forgot: 2012 job growth revised upward by 422,000 as part of the annual benchmark revisions.
Suggested reading for everyone:
Employment Situation Summary
Job growth by sector (table)
I think this month was a good report, especially considering the revisions to the last couple months.
empty vessel
Member
I agree to some extent that arbitrarily tying SS benefits to a separate tax on labor had political advantages historically. I think it also reflected political weakness. Regardless of its past political necessity, I think we're well beyond that now. The program's separate accounting is now being used to bludgeon it (it's running out of money!). And as between caving in to attacks on the program and eliminating the arbitrary tie to the payroll tax, I would strongly prefer the latter. Doing it would be a demonstration of political strength and it would fortify the program by shielding it from baseless attacks about its "solvency."
Rocket Scientist
Member
Are there members of conrgess who suggest this? Right now it sems to me like the right has plenty of people advocating extremely conservatives ideas (both social and economic) yet the left doesn't have the equivalent.
empty vessel
Member
No, nobody is advocating it. It's outside the bounds of discussion permissible by serious people.
The Librarian
Banned
Mr. Ghaleon, if I posted everything there'd be nothing for you to post!
Rocket Scientist
Member
I never liked those serious people.
TheHeretic
Banned
Social security is retirement insurance, not an entitlement, so the matter of its sustainability matters. It only passed congress and the subsequent conservative revolution because of this design. Disregarding the historicity of programs is incredibly politically naive, you don't approach politics trying to make the country conform closest to your ideology, that's Paul Ryan and Grover Norquists radicalism to a tee. It would be just as exposed to attack if it were just another expenditure.
There is a solvency problem due to the aging population, lifting the cap is the easiest and most populist way of fixing it.
The Librarian
Banned
Yup. All you need to do is lift the cap.
PhoenixDark
Banned
7.9 unemployment
Giant Panda
Member
I've always thought a benevolent dictator would be the best form of government, but any other kind of dictator would be the worst. So in reality democracy is just the best non-risky form of government.
Obummer's America.
empty vessel
Member
Of course it matters. And it is indefinitely sustainable because it is a promise by the US government to pay people US dollars, an obligation it can always meet.
And my suggestion is that it is time to move on from that position of political weakness to a position of political power. The conservative revolution is over.
Of course it wouldn't. If social security payments were not arbitrarily pegged to the amount of US dollars destroyed via a separate tax, then the social security program could not be attacked on the ground that the government doesn't have enough money to pay what it promised.
That isn't a solvency problem. The US government can never be insolvent of US dollars. What you must mean to say is that our society lacks the real resources--the real goods and services that US dollars command--to provide retirement for an aging population. And that is patently false. Our society is plenty wealthy to cover the retirement of the baby boom generation.
Eliminating the pay roll tax entirely is the easiest and most populist way of fixing social security. And by fixing social security, I mean increasing benefits and lowering the age at which one is eligible for retirement benefits, which is the direction we ought to be heading.
Dear god why am I reading comments on Bloomberg. When someone calls someone else out for claiming that consumer spending is declining dramatically and points out that it is not, they respond with "I'm not going to repute you because you use a line out of the socialistic play book when attacking a good point." So using data and numbers to prove a point is now socialistic. Every comment on every article seems to be about how positive economic numbers are cooked and anything suggesting otherwise is a lie.
How can people live in such a bubble to convince themselves that literally everything in the world is a cover-up?
How can people live in such a bubble to convince themselves that literally everything in the world is a cover-up?
TheHeretic
Banned
First Governments have switched currencies in history, fiat money is only as good as its value determined by supply and demand because it isn't pegged. So that the Government can always technically pay it is a useless observation.
Conservatives have had a grudge against the problem since it began, and there are still twice as many self described conservatives as liberals. How much that really means is up for debate, but I wouldn't get cocky. As for political strength, that's just blind ideology, don't fix what isn't broken.
First, it isn't arbitrary. The payroll surplus is supposed to go into a separate trust and not into budget accounting. Second it could easily be attacked on that basis and would be attacked on that basis, it would be attacked more because its sustainability would be far less measurable. The payroll tax calculations work in the program's favour, not against it. Third this is just an ideological beef you have with a regressive tax. Reagan could have sliced it up in the 80's as his policy makers wanted but he knew better. Thatcher wouldn't touch the NHS because of the insurance tax in the UK for the exact same reason. What you are suggesting is completely foolish if you want the program to survive any measure of time going forward.
Silly semantics and a misunderstanding of fiat money once again. That the treasury can print infinite money in a technical sense is meaningless in policymaking.
Politically impossible, counterproductive, and the last point about benefits is flat out ridiculous. Medicine allows people to live longer and work longer if they choose, which many do. The benefits are fine and there's more than enough of giving stuff to the elderly in the US - there are more important things to invest in.
No, it's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.
My goal is to increase the general welfare of America. Unless you can present a compelling case otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that that's the purpose of society. Gun control and combating poverty must both be judged as priorities against that goal, and I would argue that social programs do a better job for a wide variety of reasons, many of which I already stated in that post and you didn't respond to. But I'd also note that there's a compelling case that the murder rate went up -- because of leaded gasoline! Which is kind of my point. We must understand societal externalities to understand the causes of violence.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
I have, actually -- starting with the fact that America has a constitutional right to arms and adding that our highest priority shouldn't be any specific statistic such as gun violence but overall weal. And, of course, the fact that gun violence is a symptom of greater societal problems. You just haven't actually engaged with any of it.
Maybe it's because you keep dismissing my posts as "NRA talking points" without actually attempting to formulate responses to them. This is Poli-GAF, not Gun Control-GAF. If you can't actually defend your position, why are you posting? If they're really talking points it should be that much easier for you to demolish them.
- Status